Folkestone & Hythe District Council (202127345)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127345

Folkestone & Hythe District Council

13 February 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of repairs to the door entry system of the building and its decision to decline the resident’s request for compensation.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The landlord’s repair logs state that a work order was raised on 11 November 2021 to undertake repairs to the buzzer and speech module on the front door entry system following a report from the resident made on 10 November 2021 that they were faulty. An appointment was made for 26 November 2021 to undertake repairs. An operative attended but was unable to complete the repair to the speech module and a specialist contractor was contacted to complete the work. An appointment was made for 18 January 2022. This appointment failed and was rearranged for 23 January 2022, where the repairs were completed. The resident then contacted the contractor on 2 February 2022 and informed it that the intercom handset in his property was not working. An appointment was arranged for 7 February 2022 and repairs were undertaken.
4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 February 2022 and requested to raise a formal complaint into how the repairs had been handled. He described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. The door entry system had not worked properly since he moved into the property in October 2021. As a result, he had experienced difficulties in receiving parcels and visitors.
   2. It took three months from when he first reported the issues in November 2021 until repairs were completed in February 2022. This included a failed appointment on 18 January 2022, which he was given no prior notice that it had been cancelled.
   3. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested compensation for the length of time it took the landlord to complete repairs to the door entry system and the inconvenience that this had caused. The resident suggested a figure of £4,000.
5. Following the resident raising the complaint, the landlord’s repair logs state that further reports about the front and rear door entry systems not working and issues with the resident’s handset were made and work orders raised on: 25 March 2022, 7 April 2022, 3 May 2022 and 6 June 2022. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Apologised for the delays in resolving the issues with the door entry system and for the missed appointment.
   2. Explained that the delay in arranging the 18 January 2022 appointment following the initial visit on 26 November 2021 was due to restrictions placed on the subcontractor as a result of the national lockdowns. It then explained that the 18 January 2022 appointment did not go ahead due to time constraints on the day and it understood that the contractor apologised to the resident when it attended on 23 January 2022.
   3. Informed the resident that due to ongoing issues with the condition of the door entry system, it had made the decision to replace the system and had added the work to its current planned maintenance programme. It expected to start this work on 11 August 2022.
   4. Noted that while it had apologised to the resident for the delays in completing the repairs, it had declined his request for compensation on the grounds that it had found no evidence of service failure in how it had responded to the matter.
6. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the length of time it took the landlord to replace the door entry system and the inconvenience that this had caused. As a resolution to the complaint the resident requested £20,000 compensation, which he broke down as £2,000 for each of the ten months that the door entry system was not properly working.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. Section 1 of the tenancy agreement relates to repairs. This, in part, states that the landlord will “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property”.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repairs as “Emergency” (respond within 24 hours) and “Routine” (arrange an appointment within 28 working days). The landlord defines an emergency repair as a repair that presents “an immediate danger to a person or serious risk of damage to the property”. In regard to planned work, the repairs policy states that “planned works are those which are carried out when a component of the property has reached the end of its estimated lifecycle and needs replacing”. The policy does not give any timescales as to when a planned repair will be completed.

Scope of investigation

9. In raising a complaint with the landlord and in his correspondence with this Service, the resident has described the adverse effect on his existing medical conditions this matter had caused. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

How the landlord handled repairs to the door entry system of the building and its decision to decline the resident’s request for compensation

10. Once the landlord had received the resident’s reports about the condition of the door entry system, it had a duty to respond to the issue in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately to the reports. It acted on the resident’s first report by raising a work order and arranging an appointment within its published timescale for a routine repair. When the operative attended and determined that a specialist contractor would be required to complete repairs to the speech module, a subcontractor was contacted and an appointment was arranged to complete the repair. The resident then contacted the contractor on 2 February 2022 to report issues with the handset in his property and a repair was completed within the routine repair timescale.
11. Following further issues with the resident’s handset and problems with the rear door entry intercom, a surveyor inspection was undertaken in June 2022 that recommended replacing the entire door entry system. The funds for this work were approved in July 2022 and added to the landlord’s current planned maintenance programme. While it was understandably frustrating for the resident to experience intermittent issues with the door entry system during this period, it was reasonable for the landlord to look to repair the system in the first instance. Social landlords have limited resources and they are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. In view of this, landlords are entitled to opt to repair damaged items rather than replacing them. However, the items should be replaced if they cannot be economically repaired, which was the case here.
12. However, while the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was reasonable, there has been a breakdown in communication between the landlord and resident in regard to the progress of the work. Following the 26 November 2021 appointment and the commissioning of a specialist contractor to complete the repair, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident that as a result of restrictions relating to the Covid-19 pandemic that there would be a delay until the specialist contractor could attend.  Moreover, there is no evidence that the resident was informed that the contractor would not be able to make the 18 January 2022 appointment and that it had been rearranged for 23 January. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord informed the resident of its decision to replace the door entry system until the stage two complaint response, which was sent on 11 August 2022.
13. This lack of information caused clear inconvenience to the resident, who had to raise a complaint and seek the intervention of this Service in order to receive updates on the status of the work. Therefore, there has been service failure in how the landlord handled the repair and in order to fully resolve the complaint, compensation is warranted that recognises the inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor communication. The resident has requested that the landlord should pay £20,000 compensation. The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.
14. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) recommends a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay £50 for the failed appointment on 18 January 2022, and a further £150 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor communication between November 2021 and August 2022. This would make a total compensation award of £200.
15. In his letter of complaint to the landlord dated 21 February 2022, the resident described himself as a vulnerable adult and informed the landlord of his existing medical conditions. When providing evidence to this Service, the landlord stated that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. It is therefore recommended that the landlord, if it has not done so already, contact the resident to ensure its records are up to date in regard to the resident’s health and determine if any vulnerabilities should be flagged on his records.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled repairs to the door entry system of the building and its decision to decline the resident’s request for compensation

Orders

17. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £200. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

18. It is recommended that the landlord, if it has not done so already, contact the resident to ensure its records are up to date in regard to the resident’s health and determine if any vulnerabilities should be flagged on his records.